Call to Create Successor Deal to JCPOA An American ‘Set-Up’: US Prof.

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American professor at the University Of Pittsburgh School of Law said the call by Europeans to create a successor deal to the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers is a US “set-up” to “demand more concessions from Iran” and find a pretext to attack the country.

“To put it bluntly, the call to demand more from Iran than the original deal required seems like a set-up. The goal is clearly to demand more concessions from Iran, and when Iran inevitably declines, this will be used against Iran to justify an armed attack against it. There is some evidence that this was the plan of the US all along — to ultimately make Iran an offer it predictably would refuse, put the blame on Iran for the refusal, and then attack," Daniel Kovalik told the Tasnim News Agency.

Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and is the author of “The Plot to Attack Iran”.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: Back in January, US President Donald Trump said he was extending the sanctions relief on Iran for the last time, giving the European signatories a May 12 deadline to fix what he claimed “flaws” in the agreement or he would refuse to waive those bans. Do you think Trump would quit the deal?

Kovalik: I certainly fear, as others do, that a US withdrawal from the deal could be a prelude to war with Iran. Israel certainly seems ready for such a war and is urging withdrawal from the deal. Given this, it is critical that the US be urged to stay in the deal, and that cooler heads prevail here.

Tasnim: What consequences a potential US withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-imposition of sanctions might have? How should Iran respond to this?

Kovalik: The consequences could be a war with Iran which would certainly kill millions, not only in Iran, but also in Palestine and Lebanon. Such a war could also draw in other countries like Russia and may result in some use of nuclear weapons, particularly by Israel — ironically, the only nuclear regime in the Middle East. In short, we are looking at a possible WWIII if this comes to pass.

Iran does not have many options here. They have abided by the nuclear deal — no one is seriously questioning this — and now the US is threatening to tear it up anyway. How could one react to such a situation?

Tasnim: Other parties to the deal, except for Russia and China, are seeking to create a successor deal to the agreement. What is your take on an add-on deal?

Kovalik: To put it bluntly, the call to demand more from Iran than the original deal required seems like a set-up. The goal is clearly to demand more concessions from Iran, and when Iran inevitably declines, this will be used against Iran to justify an armed attack against it. There is some evidence that this was the plan of the US all along — to ultimately make Iran an offer it predictably would refuse, put the blame on Iran for the refusal, and then attack.